Hinderstein v. Town of Babylon

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hinderstein v. Town of Babylon

34 A.D.3d 738, 823 N.Y.S.2d 910

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedNovember 28, 2006

StatusPublished

This text of 34 A.D.3d 738 (Hinderstein v. Town of Babylon) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hinderstein v. Town of Babylon, 34 A.D.3d 738, 823 N.Y.S.2d 910 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for inverse condemnation, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Werner, J.), dated June 2, 2005, which denied their motion for leave to amend their complaint and granted the defendant’s cross motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) for failure to state a cause of action.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiffs failed to demonstrate the existence of a protect-able property interest (see Cathedral of Incarnation in Diocese of Long Is. v Garden City Co., 265 AD 2d 286, 290 [1999]). Consequently, the Due Process Clauses of the United States and New York State Constitutions are not implicated (see Board of Regents of State Colleges v Roth, 408 US 564 [1972]; Morillo v City of New York, 178 AD2d 7, 12 [1992]).

The Supreme Court correctly denied the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend the complaint, as the proposed amendment was palpably insufficient as a matter of law and totally devoid of merit (see CPLR 3025 [b]; Tarantini v Russo Realty Corp., 259 AD2d 484 [1999]). Florio, J.P., Adams, Krausman and Rivera, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for inverse condemnation, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Werner, J.), dated June 2, 2005, which denied their motion for leave to amend their complaint and granted the defendant’s cross motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) for failure to state a cause of action.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiffs failed to demonstrate the existence of a protect-able property interest (see Cathedral of Incarnation in Diocese of Long Is. v Garden City Co., 265 AD 2d 286, 290 [1999]). Consequently, the Due Process Clauses of the United States and New York State Constitutions are not implicated (see Board of Regents of State Colleges v Roth, 408 US 564 [1972]; Morillo v City of New York, 178 AD2d 7, 12 [1992]).

The Supreme Court correctly denied the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend the complaint, as the proposed amendment was palpably insufficient as a matter of law and totally devoid of merit (see CPLR 3025 [b]; Tarantini v Russo Realty Corp., 259 AD2d 484 [1999]). Florio, J.P., Adams, Krausman and Rivera, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

34 A.D.3d 738, 823 N.Y.S.2d 910, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hinderstein-v-town-of-babylon-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack